Shouting at the ocean with pebbles in my mouth since 2008. The subjects of this blog include forensics, the war-on-terror detainees, the Duke lacrosse case, the Knox/Sollecito case, and the academic world as it intersects the political. It will sometimes examine issues of particular interest to Wilmington, NC and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Eighteen claims about Edda Mellas’s interviews

Part 21 in the Knox/Sollecito case

At True Justice for Meredith, The Machine has posted eighteen supposed errors (“Why The Media Are Wrong To Rely On Amanda Knox’s Family For Impartial and Accurate Information”) made by Edda Mellas, Amanda Knox’s mother, in an interview on Larry King Live and in other interviews. I invite readers to examine The Machine’s assertions and evaluate their accuracy. Please add citations where appropriate. I’ll get the ball rolling with my replies to numbers 2, 3, and 8, which are given below the three claims made at TJfM.

False claim 2. “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day” Edda Mellas is plucking “facts” out thin air with this claim. No evidence was presented at any court hearing that showed that Rudy Guede suddenly had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day on 1 November 2007.

False claim 3. “There is no murder weapon.”Judge Massei indicates in the sentencing report that Amanda Knox’s judges concluded that the double DNA knife, the larger of the two indicated by Meredith’s autopsy, is indeed the murder weapon. It is totally compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck, and according to a number of independent forensic experts, it contained Meredith’s DNA on the blade.False claim 8. Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse.Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside.

Responses2. The Machine’s claims about court hearings may be true, but he or she needs to explain where Rudy Guede, who was jobless, obtained the money for a train ticket to Germany. Because the murder occurred at the end of the day on 1 November, Guede’s actions on 2 November and later are equally relevant to a discussion of whether or not he had more money.

3. The Machine does not list these other supposed experts here but does in claim 13. Dr. Stafanoni’s boss, Dr. Renato Biondo, cannot reasonably be called independent. Amanda’s DNA on the handle is strictly meaningless, since we cannot know when it was deposited. The hypothesis that her DNA was deposited when she cooked with the knife is perfectly reasonable. Meredith’s DNA is highly contested. This banal kitchen knife is not compatible with two of the three wounds, and the third one could have been made with any sharp knife, including the one that made the first two.

8. The Machine makes a distinction without a difference. The fact that Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse makes it parsimonious to assume he took Meredith’s money (see claim 2).

Update 1, 4 August 2010

False claim 13: “The DNA is so insignificant. It’s this tiny spot. It’s not blood.” (minute 2.16 above)Three independent DNA experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, and Professor Francesca Torricelli - confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was definitely on the blade of the double DNA. The DNA charts themselves show a clear and unmistakable match. Edda Mellas doesn’t seem to understand that DNA evidence almost always involves only microscopic traces of DNA. Dr. Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade could indeed have come from Meredith’s blood.

ResponseThe Machine ignores that Meredith’s DNA was in the low copy number (LCN) range, demonstrating that he or she understands less about DNA profiling than Edda Mellas does. First, LCN samples should be tested at least twice, and only those alleles that show up in both runs are should be counted. Second, Stefanoni did not use standard LCN conditions in other ways, such as the number of cycles of the amplification step and working under lighting and air-handling conditions that minimize the possibility of DNA contamination. New methods are typically vetted in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted. Third, the Machine also ignores the well known possibility of contamination, as well as the fact that contamination is a greater risk for samples in the LCN range.

There are some problems with The Machine’s assertion that there is a “clear and unmistakable match.” First, in locus D3S1358 there are two peaks, each with peak height of about 20 RFU, which are not seen in Meredith’s reference profile. They have 15 and 16 repeats, respectively, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 14 and 18 repeats. Second, in the D21S11 locus, the knife profile has a peak at 30 repeats, but Meredith’s profile has peaks at 30 and 33.2 repeats. It is possible to explain the two extra and one missing peak as a consequence of the DNA being in the LCN range. Yet, this explanation only underscores the fact that Stefanoni should have used the services of a lab that has proper facilities and experience, instead of making up her own inferior method.

It is now well known that Stefanoni went ahead with the analysis, despite the fact that her instrument read “too low,” meaning that there was not enough DNA to continue. What is less well appreciated is the fact that Stefanoni treated this sample differently from other samples, where she discontinued the analysis under similar circumstances. The Machine ignores Stefanoni’s apparent inconsistency.

Dr. Stefanoni’s assertion that the DNA could have come from Meredith’s blood is extremely dubious. The knife tested negative for blood with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Professor Gregory Hampikian indicated that the test for blood is more sensitive than the test for DNA. In other words, if a bloody knife were cleaned of all traces of blood, all traces of DNA would also be removed. They and the cosigners of an open letter on the DNA evidence in this case publish regularly in the field of DNA forensics. The same cannot be said of Dr. Stefanoni.

Furthermore, The Machine ignores the fact that Stefanoni did not turn over the electronic data files or the machine logs. This failure to abide by the international standards of discovery of DNA evidence means that any claim about the quality of the results is suspect. The defense expert witnesses did not have all of the information that they would need to challenge Stefanoni’s dubious results.

Update 2, 4 August 2010, approximately 10:15 PM

“False claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story…And most devastating of all, Sollecito stopped providing Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.Sollecito is STILL nearly three years later refusing to corroborate her alibi.”

The Machine’s claim about Raffaele is exactly false. Raffaele backed up Amanda at their hearing in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November 2007, discussed in Darkness Descending on p. 208.“Judge Matteini said, ‘There are several points, Mr. Sollecito, that differ between your version of today and your version of events as related on the evening of 5 November just three days ago. Can you explain whether you were with Amanda Knox that evening or not?’Now it was make-or-break time. Matteini had posed the million-dollar question. The one Mignini had been waiting for.His pay-off was unexpected, effectively an explosive retraction of his initial confession.Raffaele said, ‘I’m sorry I told you that crap about not being with Amanda. We were together that evening.’ …But now on the key point of the night in question, he was sticking to her like glue again. Backing her up… ‘I can confirm that I spent the night with Amanda Knox.’”

Murder in Italy, p. 198, summarized his appearance before Judge Matteini by noting that Raffaele got the times wrong, but the events right. “Then the judge asked the Italian student what he did remember, prompting a long, dull discussion about the broken pipe under the sink, which he had showed Amanda, discussing with her the probable cause of the leak, a perennial problem in that flat. He also remembered eating dinner with her, watching a movie, working on his computer, getting tired, and going to sleep. Yes of course they slept together. He just couldn’t remember what time they did each action, because he’d been stoned, in a holiday mood, and not punching a time clock.” Finally in his diary Raffaele recalls Amanda saying to him that if she had not been with him that night, she would also be dead.

It is often said that Raffaele did not support Amanda’s alibi of being with him the night of the murder in his appearance before the Supreme Court in the spring of 2008. It was actually Raffaele’s lawyers who appeared, and one of their jobs was to end Raffaele’s detention without charge by any reasonable legal argument. According to Perugia-Shock (25 April 2008) Raffaele’s lawyers invoked the concept of “erroneous assumption,” rather than “erroneous belief.” If they had said “erroneous belief”, it would mean that Amanda was not with him. But the “erroneous assumption” has to do with making an assumption, not so much with the thing being assumed, and then transferring evidence onto him as a result. His lawyers were saying that evidence that might place Amanda at the scene of the crime should not be used to justify holding Raffaele in custody. Raffaele’s lawyers might have meant that Raffaele obviously could not account for Amanda’s whereabouts after he fell asleep. Thus there is no justification for using his lawyers’ appearance before the Supreme Court as evidence that Raffaele claimed that Amanda was elsewhere.

62 comments:

Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

The Machine has bought into the Mignini brainwashing word play. There is a difference between met and know.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know

Meet is to be introduced or come together at a particular time and place.Know in this case would be,"to be acquainted or familiar with." in other words she didn't know Guede personally. She knew who he was but didn't know him. Apparently he must not be American and have a hard time understand American English. Amanda met the guy 1 time and might have saw him at a club 1 time. That does not mean she knows him. I've met a few famous people. Doesn't mean i know them.

False claim 12: There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene. (minute 2.06 above)

Edda: “Its the fact at the actual crime scene there is no physical evidence of Amanda; not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a nothing.”

Edda is telling the truth. There is absolutely no evidence linking Amanda to the crime scene. The Machine knowingly spreads false information in his article. Attacking Amanda’s Mother is a new low for TJMK. The article proves once again that TJMK has absolutely no credibility.

The Machine: "there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room. According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoe print on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size."

Here is the truth about The Machine's list:

The Machine: “the double DNA knife"

Raffaele's kitchen knife in no way puts Amanda in Meredith's room at the time of the murder. The knife retrieved from Raffaele's apartment is not compatible with the wounds found on Meredith Kercher. It is not logical to conclude that two different knives were used. The medical examiner described that one shorter knife or object was used. Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have created two (those on the right side with short height and only 1.5 cm depth) of the three wounds. The prosecution’s experts agreed that a shorter knife could have created all three of the wounds. The insertion of the knife was very forceful leaving an exit wound on the other side of Meredith’s neck. The knife went in only 8 cm, not 17cm. There is clear indication by bruising that the handle struck on the entry side making the blade only 8 cm, not 17 cm, especially given the size of the knife.

The kitchen knife does not match the size of the knife that left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed cover. The knife that made the imprint on the bed matches all three wounds. The greater width of the third insertion is from the knife being sawed back and forth as it went in and out. Experts said the kitchen knife was not incompatible with the one wound on the left, but that many other knives were more compatible. One expert, Professor Torre, said it was not compatible at all due to the length of the knife along with evidence that was left by the handle. Professor Torre felt all wounds were made by the same blade, one that was 8 cm.

Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.

Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable.

Contamination cannot be ruled out and is also highly likely with the methods used by Dr. Stefanoni. Contamination is further possible by the fact there was no visible presence of biological traces on the blade. Tests also concluded that there was no blood on the blade. TMB testing showed negative for blood.

The defense makes a very important observation regarding Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife. If Raffaele's kitchen knife was actually used in the murder, it would have had blood on the handle which would have shown up in later testing. There was a lot of Amanda’s DNA on the handle. The court states that Amanda’s DNA on the handle shows that she used the knife in the murder. How would Meredith’s blood be missing from the same handle if the knife was used to kill Meredith? Cleaning of the knife would remove Meredith’s blood along with Amanda’s DNA. This clearly shows that Amanda’s DNA was deposited on the handle at a different time, most likely when she used the knife to prepare food in Raffaele’s kitchen.

The Machine: “blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room”

Really? How did she track blood throughout the cottage without leaving one footprint or shoe print in the murder room?

The Machine is referring to stains that were detected with luminol. The luminol stains all tested negative for blood. Every single print and stain detected with luminol tested negative for blood. Patrizia Stefanoni claimed these stains were never tested for blood, however in July 2009, Stefanoni's notes confirmed the stains were tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood. All of the stains detected with luminol tested negative for blood. These were undated stains and had nothing to do with the murder.

The Machine also states that Amanda tracked blood into the bathroom. This is completely false. There were no prints of any kind on the floor attributed to Amanda. Mixed DNA was found in the bathroom.

All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.

The most plausible explanation is that the mixed DNA is simply a result of cohabitation. As an example for the sake of comparison, investigators used luminol in Raffaele's apartment and found a latent stain with the mixed DNA of him and Amanda. Here is an example that you can relate to in your own home. If you cut your finger and your blood lands on a sink in a bathroom shared by another person in your house, you will get the exact same result. Your DNA will be mixed with the DNA from the other person that also used the bathroom. All it means is that two people have been sharing the same space.

The samples in the bathroom were not collected properly. Patrizia Stefanoni used the collection swabs like cleaning rags. She wiped large surface areas and also collected from multiple surfaces with one single swab. She also never changed her gloves. Stefanoni actually advanced the mixing process right on her swabs.

The Machine: “According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size.”

Every single shoe print and footprint found in the murder room belongs to Rudy Guede. The two imprint experts that The Machine (Harry Rag) is referring to were proven wrong. The Machine and everyone else at TJMK and PMF are well aware that this information has been refuted but they continue to spread this lie. They spread this lie because they have no evidence whatsoever that puts Amanda in the murder room. The Machine has no interest in the truth.

Raffaele Sollecito's forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in court, that all of the prints found in the murder room belonged to Rudy Guede.

The prosecution had originally stated that there was one shoe print matching Raffaele Sollecito's shoes found on the tile floor. They also stated that one shoe print of a woman's size 37 shoe was found on a pillow case. The shoe print said to be a woman's shoe was attributed to Amanda.

The truth is, all of the shoe prints match Rudy's Nike Outbreak 2 shoes. There were no shoe prints or bare footprints found in Meredith's room that can be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele. The alleged women's size 37 shoe was actually a partial shoe print from Rudy's Nike Outbreak 2 shoe.

There were a total of five shoe prints found on the pillowcase. The prosecution's expert only found two shoe prints on the pillowcase. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci identified all five by highlighting the fabric using a process called Crimescope. None of these shoe prints represent a woman's shoe size 37. The prosecution's expert found one partial shoe print on the edge of the pillowcase. It was that shoe print that was said to be a woman's shoe. The truth is, there were three partial shoe prints. All three partial shoe prints match the tread pattern on Rudy Guede's shoes.http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

((False claim 6: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 0.54 here)

The prosecutors didn’t claim this at the trial. According to Mignini’s timeline, which he used when presenting his scenario for what happened to the judges and jury at trial, Meredith was killed at about 11.50pm.))

Where to start on this one. How about we start right here. This comment on the time of death is from http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C344/((Note: this one does not fit the forensics timeframe for Meredith’s death which was put at between 9.00 and 11.00 pm))You will notice that if she claimed that Meredith died at 9:30 that it does in fact fit within the timeframe of Meredith's ToD.

((Annotation 1: The cell phonesOne of Meredith’s cell phones was registered by a tower at 10.13 the night of the murder, in the area where they were both found the next morning.“ .. one of Meredith’s stolen mobile phone picking up another cell tower at 10:13pm.” (Quote: Stewarthome2000 on TJMK, 03/22).The signal from the phone was only picked up by one tower, and only for a short while. The records of the cell phone call reveal that it was only one call attempt, and only a very short connection was made (i.e. the phone was not for example active all the way from Meredith’s cottage to the garden, as a consequence of bumping around in somebody’s pocket).

So, we know that at 10.13 there was human activity involving the cell phone, in the area of tower 2. It would be relevant to know where, when walking from the cottage to the garden, one at the earliest enters into the area of cell phone tower no.2.

Considering the ‘story of the phone’ and the circumstances – and we must assume that the ‘user’ of the phone at 10.13 knew that the phone was taken from Meredith - it seems less likely that someone tried to make a ‘real call’ with Meredith’s phone than that it was accidental. It seems likely that 10.13 is the exact time when the phones were thrown into the garden.))

Using information off of truejustice they claim that Meredith's phones where tossed in the garden at 10:13. If the phones where tossed at 10:13 then the murder would have happened before 10:13 not at 11:50. So now the ToD has to be between 9:00pm and 10:13 pm. If you middle the difference you get 9:36pm. All the above information i got from true justice.

Now some more information:Expert analysis done on Raffaele's computer showed that he was active on his computer at 9:46 p.m. So going by truejustices phone records of Meredith, Knox and Sollecito would have had to leave home at 9:46, go kill and rape meredith, stage a break in and dump the phones in 27 minutes.

The cell phone evidence is very clear and Raffaele's appeal makes a very good argument that it is a good indication of a time of death between 9 and 10 pm. At 8:56pm there is an attempt to call Meredith's parents that does not go through. There is no further attempt despite the fact that her normal habits as shown by her phone records has her calling them before she went to bed on a regular basis. Just a few minutes before 10pm there is an attempt to call voicemail that is ended before the message was heard and at 10pm there is an attempt made to call her bank that does not use the international code prefix and does not go through. At 10:13 the cell phone shows there is a GRPS (mms) reception to the cell phone from a tower that does cover Meredith's place but not as strongly as the tower that normally covers her flat. This is the first time she has gotten a call covered by this particular mast. The next incoming call at 10 past midnight shows the location of the phones in the garden where they were found based on the mast that covers that area. The Massei report speculates that Meredith was just playing around with her phone at the times all these earlier calls. The defense had the crazy idea of testing an area between Meredith's apartment and the garden where they were found and discovered that this particular mast (the one showing the 10:13 call) covers an area between Meredith's flat and the garden where they were found. Meaning at 10:13 the phone was in route to the garden and Meredith was already dead.

Just a general comment. I just don't see it is appropriate to be critical of Amanda's mother for believing she is innocent or giving the defense version of the case. Many of the Non-errors that The Machine cites are repeated in the defense appeals and should not be taken as errors simply because it doesn't fit with the great and terrible prosecution case or the Massei report. Many of these issues are disputed and are disputed for good reason, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I believe it is appropriate to be critical of The Machine both for this list and other lists that The Machine is fond of posting. The fact that Amanda's family advocates for her innocence is to be expected. A more appropriate topic should be Why Rely on The Machine for Fair, Accurate, and Unbiased Facts?

A good example of this would be the latest "FACT" presented by The Machine: "Luminol is used by crime scene investigators to reveal the presence of blood that has been cleaned up. It also reveals other substances such bleach, fruit juice and rust. However, there is no doubt that the luminol at the cottage was reacting to blood. The fact that Meredith's DNA was found in some of these traces pretty much confirms this."

The Machine neglects to mention the fact that all of these non-visable foot prints revealed by Luminol were tested for blood with TMB, and all of them tested negative. The fact that Meredith's DNA could be found on the floor of her apartment is a no brainer. She lived there, as did Amanda. DNA can't be dated and it can't be tied to the murder because of the negative blood tests. These prints and blobs could have been and most likely were made at sometime prior to the murder of Meredith. To say that there is "no doubt" that these prints were made by blood is a vast overstatement and not accurate, in my opinion.

I agree. The Machine's use of the word "some" with respect to finding DNA raises the question of the instances where Meredith's DNA was not found in a luminol-positive blob. The lack of DNA leaves plenty of room for doubt.

Bruce Fisher also makes a good point about the evidence in Raffaele's flat.

False Claim 8. Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse.Edda Mellas’s claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was in Meredith’s purse is completely untrue. According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2008, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse and not inside.

Response 8. The Machine makes a distinction without a difference. The fact that Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse makes it parsimonious to assume he took Meredith’s money (see claim 2).

It appears that Meredith was not carrying the brown handbag the night of her murder. Two photos are available on PMF - one of the brown handbag; another of a beige tote. The brown handbag was empty - apparently not because the contents had been taken but because Meredith was using the beige tote that night (according to testimony from her friends). A fair assumption would be that Meredith's cell phones, wallet, etc. were also in the beige tote.

Rudy's DNA (along with Meredith's) was on the brown handbag; his DNA was not on or inside the beige tote (I believe that is correct, though not 100% sure).

You raise a good point. However, the kindest thing I can say about The Machine's claim number 8 is that he or she is dealing in small change. The exact location of the DNA does not alter the fact that this is one of many pieces of evidence that puts Rudy in Meredith's room. No evidence whatsoever puts Amanda there, certainly not the common kitchen knife.

I believe you are correct about the bags, Christiana. However, finding Rudy's DNA on the zip of the purse means he was probably looking for something and most likely proceeded to check the other bag for her wallet and money. The Machine's claim that Edda's statement is "completely untrue" is completely misleading.

One more comment about Rudy and the money. His landlord wanted a letter from Rudy's employer, stating that he had a job, but Rudy could not provide this. My understanding is that Rudy had not worked in several months, although others say that he was only out of work for one month.

I do not know whether there was blood on the zipper of the brown handbag; you can see blood on the outside near the zipper (in Charlie Wilkes pdf of selected DNA results there is mention of 2 samples taken from the purse but doesn't say from where on the purse the samples were taken).

If Rudy did search the beige tote I would think there would have been evidence of him doing so (similar to the evidence on the brown handbag).

I have not read the article referenced here (by The Machine on True Justice) so I cannot answer to its being misleading as far as Amanda's mother is concerned. (I frequently do things backwards, I will read it, though. As far as Amanda's or Rafaelle's family being strong advocates for their children, well, I would expect nothing less).

At Perugia Murder File, you asked who has claimed DNA contamination , besides O. J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. Here is a partial list: Farah Jama, Gary Leiterman, Gregory Turner, and Profile N, a mild-mannered Christchurch resident who was the victim of one crime but falsely suspected in another. The case of Profile N is reminiscent of Ms. P, whose DNA was found on items of clothing in the Jaidyn Leskie case. Profile N and Ms. P. both had their lives disrupted because of DNA contamination, but neither one was charged with a crime. All of these cases have been discussed extensively, here and elsewhere; therefore, it is difficult for me to believe that you made any serious effort to educate yourself before posing your question.

Regarding contamination, you forgot Cynthia Sommer. Who was convicted of a murder (that, in reality, never even happened!) based on contaminated lab results and santimonious claims of "inappropriate" behaviour.

Meanwhile, if these "18 claims" come from one of the kooks at Perugia DooDoo Piles, then, unread, I'm willing to bet they are bogus, misleading, or both.

Particularly if these happen to be from the same crank who "claims (i.e. lies) about there being "independent witnesses" to Amanda Knox's police interrogations.

A few more observations regarding the purse found sitting on Meredith's bed. The purse was placed on the bed after the duvet was removed from the bed to cover Meredith. Two receipts were found laying on top of the duvet. This shows that the purse was moved after the duvet. The DNA found on the purse would lead one to believe that the purse was looked through by the killer. The two receipts found on the duvet most likely came from the purse. The order of events along with the DNA evidence leads to the logical conclusion that Rudy went through the purse after he had cleaned himself up in the bathroom and covered Meredith. He was on his way out of the cottage. The last thing he did was look for money. Finding Meredith's keys along with her money and credit cards would have given him the idea to lock the bedroom door. This is a very logical scenario when you look at the actual evidence.

Thanks Bruce,That makes sense. I still don't understand why The Machine chose to make a point about Edda Mellas saying Rudy's DNA was in the purse instead on the purse. Seems to be incredibly picky from a poster who still calls the non-visible revealed by Luminol foot prints bloody footprints when we all know they were tested for blood and the tests were negative.

I also saw The Machine implied both the court and the people of Perugia in general seem to believe that Amanda and Meredith were on cocaine when they supposedly attacked Meredith. I didn't see any mention of this in the documents I have reviewed or in the trial news that I have heard. Just seems to be thrown in at the end of his criticism of Edda Mellas for not getting the facts straight. I thought that was rather bizarre. I also noticed that the poster SB seems to believe the story from Barbie's book claiming a bleach receipt from November 4th was found in Raffaele's apartment and nobody seems to question that little "factoid" including the Machine. What do you know about this bleach receipt? I don't see it mentioned in any of the documents including the Massei report either.

Rose, There have been numerous reports that bleach receipts were found at Raffaele's apartment. These receipts simply do not exist. The accusation that Amanda or Raffaele bought bleach on the morning after the murder or at any point after that is simply not true.

The police searched Raffaele's apartment on November 16, 2007. They went through plastic shopping bags to examine receipts. The police took video of the receipts that were found. They held them in front of the camera so it is possible to see the dates on each one.

There were five receipts found. All of the receipts are from 2007. They are dated February 11, March 17, March 21, May, and November 4. None of the receipts show that bleach was purchased. The November 4, 2007 receipt was for pizza.

You can view the receipts here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/receipts.html

Skep posted this today - "And I wonder what happened to the bottle of ACE bleach that RS purchased at 8:15 on the morning of Nov 4th. I wonder too why he bought bleach of all things. These are interesting questions, to which we don't have answers."

Raffaele did not buy bleach on November 4th. This is an outright lie. I posted the receipts. The lies really need to stop.

Bruce - I want to offer an alternate response to #12, which claims, in part, "Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room."

As you pointed out about the knife, Amanda's DNA on it does not place her at the crime scene. Similarly, Amanda's tracks in blood, if any exist, would not put her in Meredith's room at all, nor would they necessarily place her in the house on the night of the murder.

Rudy's bloody shoe prints in the hallway may not have been completely dry all the way through by the time Amanda arrived at the cottage in the morning. Even if they were dry, Amanda walked around in her bare feet, which may have been sweaty, and she ran a shower, which put moisture into the air, onto the floor and onto her feet, creating the potential for her to pick up the blood from the floor of the hall. All of this would have taken place legitimately, in the morning, well after the crime had been committed and the killer was long gone.

IIRC, Amanda herself said she didn't notice the blood on the bath mat until after her shower. It is not incriminating for Amanda to have had blood on her feet and to have left the print there herself. She may have made prints on the bathroom floor, too, but wiped them up when she scooted the bath mat.

Obviously, these hypothetical possibilities are all contingent upon there actually being any evidence of Amanda tracking blood around the house.

The Machine seems to want to shoot himself in the foot with “Part 3: And Some Conclusions.” Apparently he has given up even trying to gain allies in the news media. For months he, Harry Rag and other alter egos have been belittling the journalists (even Oprah) who cover the story, by accusing them of blindly buying into the “Knox PR Machine” version of the case, as if these professionals have no experience and no ability to think for themselves.

Now he adds, “The fact that Edda Mellas has been able to propagate so many wrong claims in the media for so long without being challenged seems to speaks volumes about the naivety and unprofessionalism of her interviewers, and of the media organisations they work for.”

Nice.

“As they usually do, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, King 5, and other media outlets should have interviewed objective crime-case professionals, who don’t have a vested interest in the case.”

They probably would have, if only they could find any objective crime-case professionals who would support a version of the evidence that differs from Edda's.

“Instead they have relied again and again on Amanda Knox’s mother and other family members as primary sources ….. It seems downright perverse that some of the journalists who have interviewed Edda Mellas treat Amanda Knox as a victim, and with cloying sympathy ask “How is Amanda doing?” They wouldn’t dream of asking Charles Manson’s mum how the Manson girls are doing..”

Have they actually relied on family members as “primary sources?” Or are the interviews with Amanda’s parents intended to focus on the subjective, human-interest aspects of the story? Isn’t it true that most TV journalists will interview just about any notorious person they can get access to? I think they would interview Charles Manson’s mother if they could; it certainly would guarantee a lot of viewers.

My own conclusion about The Machine’s essay is that it is based on the premise that TV viewers like us can’t judge character any better than journalists can recognize the truth. Both viewers and journalists need the insulting likes of The Machine and Peter Quennell to guide us.

The more I look at this the more I see that this is simply another one of The Machines loaded questions. He asks why the Media should rely on Amanda's family for impartial information. Of course there is nobody out there that thinks Amanda's family is impartial or that they even should be impartial. Mary H makes an excellent point by turning this question around to a looking at it as a character judgment on the part of both journalist and reader/viewer.

The other thing Mary points out is the fact that the question itself makes the assumption that the Media does rely on the Knox family for accurate information without giving evidence that this is the case. This is a very common tactic and one that is used in the multitude of lists of questions that The Machine is so fond of copying and pasting.

The comparison to Charles Manson and the references to cocaine use (again without providing any evidence to support this claim) make it clear that The Machine has no business complaining about another person's lack of impartiality. As far as errors go, my opinion is that The Machine makes plenty of those as well.

My conclusion is that this is a hit piece with a direct attack on Amanda's family simply because they are defending Amanda, with the addition of spreading unsupported rumors about Amanda and cocaine use which appears to be a common theme at TJMK and more recently at PMF.

Claim 2: “He (Rudy Guede) all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day”

Meredith’s rent money has yet to be found. Since Guede did not have a job, logic would lead one to suspect that Guede ‘borrowed’ the money from Meredith and that this money financed his trip to Germany.___________________

Claim 3: “There is no murder weapon.”

The knife was not the murder weapon! Everybody knows this to be the case and for Judge Massei’s court to base a guilty verdict on the knife reeks of prejudice and/or incompetence!

The inclusion of the knife in the court’s pool of evidence says a lot about Massei’s court. Unfortunately, nothing of what is said about the court is included in the domain of ‘just’ and ‘fair’.

There isn’t anybody reading this blog who would tolerate evidence used against them or a loved one which was ‘manufactured’ in this manner._________________

Claim 4: “The Italian Supreme Court found the interrogation illegal”

The Supreme Court ruled that any information resulting from the interrogation was inadmissible in the Knox/Sollecito trial, but, in a mockery of justice and a violation of basic human rights, interrogation information was entered into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case._________________

Claim 5: “They admit to the fact they really have no physical evidence”

If the prosecution had solid physical evidence they would not be trampling all over Amanda’s rights by withholding evidence and lying as per the following:

*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.

*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by the judge’s order show that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.

Coroner Luca Lalli was not permitted to take the temperature of Meredith’s body until around 12:50 am on November 3rd. Crucial in relation to Amanda and Raffaele’s alibis, the time of death has remained indefinite.

The appeals of Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito present convincing arguments that the time of death was approximately 9:30 pm.__________________

Continuation of comments made by Amanda’s parents shortly after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty:

Claim 9: “Even the Italian Supreme Court ruled that her rights were repeatedly violated.”An even higher court is beginning to realize that Amanda’s rights were repeatedly violated—SOCIETY, which demands fundamental justice and the rule of law:

*Denial of legal representation

*Interrogation statements ruled to be inadmissible by the Supreme Court were thrust into the trial due to the Lumumba defamation/slander case.

*The prosecution withheld crucial testing information from the defense for the first 6 months of the trial of first instance.

*The prosecution lied for the first 6 months of the trial when they continually repeated that the footprints revealed by luminol were not tested for blood—documents released to the defense by a judge’s order revealed that the footprints were tested and that the results were negative, i.e., no blood.

*Amanda Knox has been charged with slander for defending herself in court_________________

Claim 10: The double DNA knife is incompatible with the wounds on Meredith’s body.

(See #3 above)______________

Claim 11: Meredith’s room was so tiny, there wasn’t enough room for four people in some kind of tussle.

There certainly wasn’t enough room to avoid leaving telltale evidence of presence for those involved—Rudy Guede._______________

Claim 12: There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.

There is no DNA of Amanda Knox in the bloody bedroom; there are no bloody shoe prints belonging to Amanda Knox; there are no bloody footprints belonging to Amanda Knox; there are no finger prints attributed to Amanda Knox.

Anyone stating otherwise, is lying!

To claim that the bra clasp is valid evidence, one would have to begin searching for the three unidentified individuals whose DNA were also found on the clasp. The one thing that the bra clasp proves is that CONTAMINATION is alive and well in the Rome testing laboratory. _________________

Continuation of comments made by Amanda’s parents shortly after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty:

Claim 14: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintained the same story

Amanda Knox’s story has been consistent from November 2, 2007, to today except when she was coerced into making a false statement on November 5 and 6 of 2007.

Raffaele Sollecito has made misstatements but one must remember that a witness who is being defensive might be telling a lie, but the purpose is not always to cover for commission of a crime, but rather to help get one out of a situation where they are not being believed or they project they will not be believed.

Raffaele has always stated that to the best of his knowledge Amanda spent the entire night with him on November 1, 2007. He does add that it would have been possible for Amanda to have sneaked out for maybe an hour without his knowledge.___________________

Claim 15: Amanda Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter

Amanda Knox was provided with an interrogator (Anna Donninio) who could speak English, not an interpreter. Anna Donninio did not play a neutral role; Anna Donninio was one of the interrogators; Anna Donninio may well have been the interrogator who struck Amanda._______________

Claim 16: “Amanda Knox is incredibly honest”

Amanda’s family and all of her friends have always said that Amanda is ‘honest to a fault’. Why would anyone wish to accuse Amanda’s family and all of her friends of being liars? _______________

Claim 17: Amanda Knox could have left Italy, but she chose to stay and help the police.

The following statement from Judge Matteini indicates that Amanda was free to leave Italy and didn’t:

"Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country," Matteini wrote. "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was affected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility."_____________

Claim 18: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not under the influence of drugs on the night of the murder

Knox and Sollecito have stated that they had smoked cannabis. One suspects that Amanda’s parents were implying that they (Amanda and Raffaele) were not under the influence of ‘hard’ drugs as opposed to mildly euphoriant-like cannabis which does not induce aggressive behavior.

Christiana wrote: It appears that Meredith was not carrying the brown handbag the night of her murder. Two photos are available on PMF - one of the brown handbag; another of a beige tote. The brown handbag was empty - apparently not because the contents had been taken but because Meredith was using the beige tote that night (according to testimony from her friends). A fair assumption would be that Meredith's cell phones, wallet, etc. were also in the beige tote.

Where does this information about Meredith carrying the white bag instead of the brown one come from...? Both bags can be described as tote bags, so that can't be it. If the brown bag was empty, isn't that most likely because the killer(s) emptied out the contents in the process of stealing the phones/keys/wallet? Even when I empty things from one bag to another, there's usually a bunch of things left in the other bag, even if just dockets and loose coins and so on. The brown bag looked like it had been turned upside down and emptied.

The idea that Meredith was carrying the other bag seems like another wild conclusion they've leapt to on PMF on the basis of nothing in particular. Presumably the police would've checked with Meredith's friends which bag she was carrying that night, and that's the bag they'd have been most interested in testing. They definitely tested the brown one - did they ever test the other?

On False Claim 14: the "erroneous assumption", this is one of those things that gets repeated over and over again that really bugs me. I nearly even went and posted on PMF about it, LOL. As you say Chris, an 'erroneous assumption' isn't the same thing as an 'erroneous belief' anyway, in that the former implies the basis for the assumption is flawed, not that the conclusion reached on that basis is false.

But in fact, the phrase Bongiorno uses isn't "erroneous assumption" anyway: she says "l’indebito presupposto", 'indebito' meaning 'undeserved', 'unwarranted', 'unjustified' - an assumption for which there isn't enough basis, which cannot be justified. So that makes it even clearer that Bongiorno is saying here that the Court has made an assumption without providing enough evidence to support it. She's not saying they were together or that they weren't together; she's challenging the Court to provide the evidence it NEEDS to provide if it's going to transfer evidence to Sollecito on the basis of an unsupported assumption.

And last is the obvious point that this is a legal argument, not some kind of categorical statement of Raffaele's position. It's either very naive or (more likely!) the product of wishful thinking to try and turn a carefully crafted legal statement into Raffaele 'throwing Amanda under the bus'...

Ah, I just noticed Christiana said that Meredith's friends testified Meredith was carrying the 'beige tote'. So if that's the one on the floor, wonder if it was ever tested...?

Kate,

I am not sure if it was tested or not, however, it has been stated on JREF by Charlie Wilkes and on PMF that Rudy's DNA was recovered inside Meredith, on her bra, on the sleeve of her jacket and on the outside of her brown handbag (if there are other places where his DNA was found please correct).

Charlie Wilkes has provided a pdf of Selected DNA Results, but as the title suggests, the document did not include all items that were tested.

In a post at True Justice for Meredith, Rudy’s DNA was said to be on Meredith’s left cuff. If that is true, it is rather interesting.

About the pdf file of DNA results: Charlie Wilkes said that he only left out the knife DNA and some unimportant results that were not from the girls’ flat, IIRC. The fact that he called them selected results gave rise to some wildly speculative and in some cases erroneous comments on another discussion forum.

I did not mean to imply that Charlie Wilkes' document was intentionally altered to hide information, just that the title suggests that there are more items that were collected and/or tested.

I cannot say whether the beige tote was tested or how many items were collected and/or tested. While I appreciate Charlie's efforts to provide the information to the public, I wish there was access to the raw data.

I have purposely not read any of the books concerning the case, instead muddling through the motivations and now the appeals (and also reading the early news reports up to the present date). To have been in court would be the best of all.

I plan to read the books on the case soon (they appear as if they would be fast reads) and will see how they compare to each other, the motivations and the appeals.

Thanks for the info Chris and Christiana. I don't remember reading anything anywhere about the white bag being tested, though I guess that doesn't mean it wasn't. Perhaps one way of finding out would be to see if it's visible anywhere in the later crime scene photos (like the lamps and the various other things that were still in the room during the later visits).

I think Massei says they concentrated on areas of visible blood stains, so it might be that they didn't test it.

"Amanda Knox was provided with an interrogator (Anna Donninio) who could speak English, not an interpreter. Anna Donninio did not play a neutral role; Anna Donninio was one of the interrogators; Anna Donninio may well have been the interrogator who struck Amanda."

In both the verbales, 01:45 and 05:45 it lists Donninio as the "English-speaking interpreter". What is her official position with the police?

I believe there were three interpreters employed during the investigation (though I have not researched enough to know exact details of when they were used); Anna Donnino, Aida Colantone and Fabio D'Astolto.

Anna Donnino was called the night of 5/6 November, D'Astolto is an English-speaking Perugian officer (not sure if he is an official interpreter) and Colantone is an interpreter with the Ministry of Interior.

Here is the google cache with the three names highlighted. The information is posted on True Justice, however, it comes from various news sources posted there.

Addressing the jury Friday, Knox insisted they were not hearing the whole truth about the interrogation that led to her arrest.

Her stepfather, Chris Mellas, looking on, she said she was pressured by her interpreter, pestered repeatedly about Lumumba, even slapped in the head by police. "There were hours and hours that they don't talk about that I stuck to my same story," Knox said in Italian. "I was called 'stupid liar.'"

Anna Donnino, the interpreter who assisted during the interrogation, said she tried to establish trust with Knox, who was struggling to offer investigators a credible defense. Donnino told the suspect that she once broke her leg in an accident but suffered so much trauma she couldn't remember anything about it afterward.

But Knox said her interpreter's "traumatization" was actually used to pressure her. "Ms. Donnino then later suggested that ... perhaps I didn't remember well because I had been traumatized, and so I should try to remember something else."And then there were these slaps to the head that I really did receive," she said. "I'm sorry, but it's true."-

Thank you Christiana and anon @ 12:07PM. I am still not certain of her status or her official job duties. Do you know if she is part of the group of police officers that are suing Amanda? Do you know if she was part of the group that got an award for their efforts in bringing Amanda to justice?

I was wondering if there has been any action taken on the Aviello claims. Also is there mention made of the multiple dna findings on the bra clasp in the appeal. I believe lie dectector tests should be given to the police and Mignini to see if they are lying about Amandas interrogation.

That seems to me to be an unusual role for an interpreter. I guess my next question is regarding Italian Law and if there is a defined role that an interpreter can play and if there are limits to what role they can take?

As a matter of fact, it's a problem of lack of professional and neutral interpreter from the very beginning (I am a professional interpreter).

If Amanda had had a lawyer at the beginning, he could have provided a real interpreter. But I doubt if this one would have been from outside Perugia. If he/she is from Perugia, he/she has to fear pressure/retaliation.

During the trial, Amanda should have had one of the best interpreters of Italy or from USA/UK. This was not the case. BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY!!!!

The worse was when she tried to take her stand herself in Italian language. For Italian ears she sounded (especially the "maschera" stunt) too artificial. Through Frank Sfarzo I had tried before to get the message through to her parents that they should take a good interpreter, before this even started. A friend of mine nearby is a professional one, and could have done this even free of charge, but he considered that he had not enough time to get familiarized. Hence this catastrophe.But the question is: the jurors, equally from Perugia, would they have acquitted her even then???

Massimo Carlotto was also falsely accused to have killed a student. He was a fugitive during 5 years, and in prison 6 years. This means: 11 years persecuted.He wrote a bestseller in Italian (and in German). Maybe you find something in English about him.Anyway, similar cases in Italy, Germany, France etc rarely are brought to the knowledge of the Anglophones. There is a reason for this... In America and UK too justice is corrupt.http://www.massimocarlotto.it/fuggiasco.html

Today they are twittering around Andrea Vogt's article about the English translation of the Perugia Witch Trial:http://www.seattlepi.com/local/424772_knox10.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=whiten+teeth

I agree with Andrea Vogt that the PMF translation efforts should be commended. I would like to stress however, that being critical of those on the defense side for not having translations of the appeals ready is not a fair comment. The Massei report has been out much longer than the appeals and I know there are efforts underway to provide good summaries of the appeals as well as human translations. Both of these appeals are several hundred pages in length and as demonstrated by the PMF efforts, these things take time.

As in the case with the PMF efforts , I know for a fact that one translation is being done on a voluntary basis (unpaid) and that this is a huge effort to undertake.

I don't know what the translation is good for. To ruminate the same old crap? My followers and I didn't even read the Italian original, but this evening we are watching in FRANCE2 the affair of the equally innocently jailed "murderer" Richard Roman in the series "Faites entrer l'accusé".http://bit.ly/4AAbQ2

Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy need friends who have the stamina to support THEM, and no futile Farmvilling.Otherwise they will be lost.

I have noticed how the Machine gets all bent out of shape when she asks those silly questions and posters do not respond. I also noticed how she did not respond to the comments here about her eighteen claims or at JREF about her twenty questions. It appears she is not really interested in getting any answers to her questions nor is she interested in an open and honest debate about her claims.

I agree. What I find so troubling is that the stated reason for listing the eighteen alleged false claims in the first place was to chide the media for relying upon Ms. Mellas for supposedly inaccurate information. Yet The Machine does not wish to acknowledge and correct her own misstatements. This gives one less confidence in the sites at which she posts.

About Me

I am a biochemist who specializes in the chemical modification of proteins and the synthesis of potential enzyme inhibitors. I am particularly interested in the chemistry of phosphorus and sulfur as it can be applied to biochemical problems.